However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Although Defendant A did not offer an apartment with F and a tenant as a collateral, Defendant A’s co-principaled the apartment with the tenant by forging a sales contract, etc., Defendant A, as if the apartment was an apartment with the tenant by forging the apartment sales contract, etc., was the victim’s bank, thereby deceiving the victim’s bank to obtain a loan from the victim.

On April 2, 2013, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) stated in the column for the location of the real estate sales contract that “G Apartment G apartment 107 Dong-dong 1202 and KRW 1200,000,000,000,000” in the sale price column; (b) stated on April 2, 2013, “B” in the column for the special agreement that the deposit is succeeded to, without stating in the column for the special agreement, the term “H’s telephone number in the column for the resident registration number; and (c) marked “J’s phone number in the column for the “H’s phone number,” and affix the J’s seal back to the above name column for the name.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with F, forged a real estate sales contract in the name of J, which is a private document concerning rights and duties, for the purpose of exercising the rights and duties.

B. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant used the forged real estate sales contract as a document that was duly formed, in collusion with F, to a bank employee who was aware of the forgery at the Dong-dong branch of the Bank located in Suwon-gu, Busan, Suwon-gu, Busan, on April 19, 2013.

C. The Defendant was guilty of the above No. 1-B.

In the time and place indicated in paragraph (1), as if there was no tenant in the apartment house in question, the applicant filed an application for real estate loan with the victim by submitting one copy of the forged real estate sales contract with the loan application in the name of the defendant, etc. as if the tenant had no tenant in the apartment house, and the F was called from the victim's loan examination team on April 2013 to check whether the tenant was the tenant.